CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Healthcare Quality and ManagementPrimary Care and Health OutcomesInnovations in Medical Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician Involvement in Quality Assurance

Sommers, Lucia S., Sholtz, Robert, Shepherd, Rodger M., Starkweather, David B.·1984·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/00005650-198412000-00006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Effective physician involvement in quality assurance in hospitals is necessary both to identify problems in patient care and to bring about problem resolution. This report describes a controlled, longitudinal study designed to measure effects on physician performance of involving physicians in setting medical audit criteria, reviewing audit results, and receiving concurrent reminders on a case-by-case basis. Unexpected low hemoglobin levels was the topic for audit. During phase 1 of the study, three randomly composed physician groups were involved in criteria setting plus review of audit results, review of audit results alone, or no treatment. During phase 2, 6 months later, the physicians in all three groups were exposed to 4 months of concurrent reminders. During phase 1, the group involved in review of audit results only achieved 51% compliance with the preset criteria compared with 26% for the group involved in criteria setting and review of audit results (P = 0.002). During phase 2, when concurrent reminders were provided, the group that was formerly the control group in phase 1, achieved 77% compliance as compared with 56% for the group previously involved in criteria setting and review of audit results (P = 0.004). These findings challenge the common assumption that physicians should be involved in criteria setting. They also suggest that providing the individual physician with information concurrently on a case-by-case basis may be superior to reviewing audit results for changing physician behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-198412000-00006

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 25 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 45

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Sommers, L. S., Sholtz, R., Shepherd, R. M., & Starkweather, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • California Pacific Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Sommers, Lucia S.
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1984-12
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
1115-1138
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005650-198412000-00006
OpenAlex
W2081155148
Cited by
45
References
25
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
physician participation, quality assurance, clinical audit, hemoglobin levels, compliance, physician performance, hospital quality improvement
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anemia, California, Communication, Female, Hemoglobins, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Medical Audit, Medical Staff, Hospital, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Quality Assurance, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review